Does Africa Have What It Takes to Drive Its Own Future?

I was on LinkedIn the other day when I saw this bold headline: “Everyone has a plan for Africa, except Africa.” At first, I was really drawn in by the headline. I thought, wow, that’s a strong point. The article backed it up by mentioning different interactions between Africa and outside partners, while also highlighting the divisions within Africa itself.

So yes, the headline is catchy. But it can also be misleading. Maybe it is a reminder of the saying: do not judge a book by its cover.

What stands out to me in this reflection is not just what the writer argued. Instead, the headline made me think of a different question: what has Africa missed because it often trusts solutions from outside instead of believing in itself?

It makes me wonder about the Pan-African movement, a time when strong and clear ideas about African self-determination were shared and, many times, attempted in real life. Sadly, many early supporters of these dreams were removed, sidelined, or isolated, sometimes with help from other Africans and support from outsiders pushing their own interests on the continent.

The irony is hard to ignore!

There is nothing wrong with other countries having plans for Africa. In fact, it would be odd if they didn’t. China will naturally engage with Africa based on its own interests. The United Kingdom will look to benefit Britain. The European Union, the United States, India, Türkiye, and others will also approach Africa based on their own strategic and economic goals.

Isn’t that just how countries operate?

The real question is not why others have plans for Africa. It is whether Africa can come together to engage those plans based on clearly defined African interests.

And yes, it should be: an African plan that all other plans must fit into.

When we look at major challenges facing the continent, from infrastructure and industrialization to trade, food security, energy, technology, and human capital, there is no shortage of declarations and frameworks. Africa has the African Union. It has the African Continental Free Trade Area. It has the African Development Bank. It has Regional Economic Communities. It has Agenda 2063 and many other development plans.

Clearly, Africa has a plan!

The Pan-African movement must face its biggest challenge: its internal weaknesses. Africa’s future will not be decided only by speeches about unity. It will depend on whether African governments and institutions can turn shared goals into real development: working transport routes, connected payment systems, efficient borders…

So why does it often seem like Africa has no plan? Why does it seem everyone else can promote their own agendas here? From what I see, what Africa seems to lack is shared conviction, effective coordination, and consistent action.

So, the statement that “everyone has a plan for Africa except Africa” points out the problem but misses the real issue.

The early Pan-African idea was more than just an emotional call for unity. At its strongest, it was about agency: the belief that Africans must have the political, economic, and institutional strength to decide their own development.

Independence was never meant to end with just changing flags. Political freedom for African countries was supposed to lay the groundwork for economic growth, deeper cooperation, and a stronger African voice in the global arena.

Africa is not just home to a unique people and history. It also has the highest number of independent countries of any continent. Yet it has struggled to turn this collective strength into real geopolitical and economic power; somewhere along the way, the political ideas of Pan-Africanism seem to have overshadowed its economic and institutional needs.

Since the African Union was formed, leaders have met and made common declarations. But too often, they go back home to focus on narrow national interests. Countries might agree on regional integration but still keep barriers against each other. Governments celebrate the AfCFTA while trucks get stuck at borders, customs systems do not connect well, and businesses find it hard to move goods around the continent.

There is a big difference between agreeing on a shared goal and actually building the systems needed to make it happen.

And this work must start within each country. Continental strength cannot exist without strong states. Good national institutions, productive economies, efficient infrastructure, and working local markets all contribute to continental power.

The Pan-African movement must, therefore, face its biggest challenge: its own internal weaknesses. Africa’s future will not be shaped mainly by speeches about unity. It will depend on whether African governments and institutions can turn shared goals into real development: working transport routes, connected payment systems, efficient borders, productive industries, reliable energy, skilled workers, better financial markets, and institutions that can work across borders.

That is where the idea of Pan-Africanism changes from mere political talk to real action.

This journey of self-discovery is part of development itself. There will always be chances to learn from elsewhere. But the importance of self-discovery in building local capacity cannot be overlooked. A borrowed solution may show us what worked somewhere else; it cannot give us the full picture of why it worked, how it grew, or what needs to change for it to work here.

There is another layer to this issue. African policymakers have often shown a lot of trust in solutions that come from outside. We borrow development ideas. We copy institutional designs. We follow policy frameworks. We hire consultants to explain what has worked for successful countries and sometimes act like development is just about copying those models here.

But development rarely works like that; there is no universal solution!

The problem is not learning from others; almost every successful economy has borrowed and adapted ideas from others. The issue arises when simple copying replaces real adaptation and domestic learning. This mostly happens when local and continental institutions fail to develop their own problem-solving skills; the urge to look outside for ready-made answers becomes much stronger.

Institutions are not just structures that can be taken from one place and put in another. Behind every successful model is a history of trial and error, adaptation, political negotiation, and institutional learning. Before an effective model is visible, there is often a long process of failure, learning, commitment to objectives, and purposeful experimentation.

This is important because when models are imported without enough involvement from local people or adjustment to local conditions, what is gained may be the visible structure without the ability to make it work.

This is why making mistakes should not always be seen as failure; learning happens through practice. Institutions grow through ongoing experimentation. Policies change when they face realities that their creators did not foresee. Governments find out what their economies can produce well, what skills they lack, and which actions lead to unexpected results.

This journey of self-discovery is part of development. There will always be chances to learn from elsewhere. But the importance of self-discovery in building local ability cannot be ignored. A borrowed solution may tell us what worked elsewhere; it cannot automatically give us the knowledge of why it worked, how it grew, or what needs to change for it to work here.

And, that is perhaps where Africa should start looking inward; not to shut itself off from the world, but to build the ability needed to engage on its own terms.